Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38185 (AP)

Nalluri Ravi v. The APSRTC Rep by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director

WP/13767/2012 · 2025-01-22

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010696002012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13767/2012 Between: Nalluri Ravi ...PETITIONER AND The Apsrtc Rep By Its Vice Chairman Managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not according the age relaxation to the petitioner for considering his recruitment to the post of Shramik, in pursuance of notification dated 23.12.2011. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on a casual basis and had completed ITI in Diesel Mechanic Trade. The petitioner also underwent an apprenticeship for a period of two (2) years. It is further submitted that the petitioner had crossed the prescribed age limit for recruitment as a Shramik and that the respondents ought to have relaxed the age restriction, keeping in view the petitioner’s apprenticeship with the respondent corporation. 3. This Court vide order dated 12.05.2012, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for interview for the post of Shramik, in pursuance of the notification. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, in compliance with the orders of this Court vide proceedings dated 01.06.2012, the respondents called upon the petitioner to attend for interview. However, it is stated in the said proceedings that the petitioner was absent for the interview, which was conducted on 23.05.2012. 5. Recording the said proceedings, nothing further is required to be adjudicated on merits. 3 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 22.01.2025 PNS